good riddance BIOS, when can be trash you finally? rant
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Rofl again, since when did CPU's lose their NAND gates? Rofl rofl rofl...
The only thing that a CPU does is 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0...
Getting my facts straight? Rofl. I have never ever met somebody as stupid as you
PS: hand over you IT card at the logout counter
ASM is the mnemonics to binary or machine langauge you idoit! I donno who you think you are, but its not anyone important, onebuck might give up, but i won't because people like you spread misinformation and i wont let down! So you can post all you want if you dont know what a mnemonic is then you have already lost.
That said lets dance!
As i said you can't compile assembler, it is already compiled, in needs to be converted NOT translated! There is nothing lost in the conversion process because it's 1:1
mov and 011011010110111101110110
mean the EXACT same thing, so like i said get your facts straight asshole!
Wikipedia:
"A utility program called an assembler is used to translate assembly language statements into the target computer's machine code. The assembler performs a more or less isomorphic translation (a one-to-one mapping) from mnemonic statements into machine instructions and data. (This is in contrast with high-level languages, in which a single statement generally results in many machine instructions.)"
"The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code)."
EAT IT BITCH!!!!
Shove that in your pipe and smoke it! Now you hand your IT card in at the security desk and have a nice day you fucktard!
Maybe this will help you understand.
Code:
# include <everything_but_the_kitchen_sink.h>
# include <the_kitchen_sink.h>
_asm
{
message db "YOU LOST ASSHOLE!",0
mov edx, offset message
mov ah, 09
int 21h
mov ax, 4c00h
int 21h
}
Last edited by ProtoformX; 06-12-2009 at 11:49 PM.
What the hell is wrong with you people? You are arguing and name calling over a CPU - go outside and get some fresh air. Equally, first and final warning to all of you: quit the name calling now. Right now. Read the rules, particularly the part that says "Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. Differing opinions is one of the things that make this site great."
First and only warning - knock off the name calling, tone it down or there will be things done to you all.
As i said you can't compile assembler, it is already compiled, in needs to be converted NOT translated! There is nothing lost in the conversion process because it's 1:1
mov and 011011010110111101110110
Too hard to just say that your point is that, upon compiling a piece of C code, the binary can always be different and assembly is always the same. As I said before; a few lines of assembly are required and Coreboot then continues to be in C. I still don't get what this adds to the discussusion AT ALL.
Thus is the same when I say: Ferrari's are most often red. Yeah so what? I dunno... So what's your point?
Quote:
Wikipedia:
"A utility program called an assembler is used to translate assembly language statements into the target computer's machine code. The assembler performs a more or less isomorphic translation (a one-to-one mapping) from mnemonic statements into machine instructions and data. (This is in contrast with high-level languages, in which a single statement generally results in many machine instructions.)"
"The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code)."
Yeah, awesome truth tables... can only be done in assembly. That's why there are a few lines of assembly in the Coreboot sourcecode. Wow. Didn't I allready told you that a thousand times by now?
Quote:
EAT IT *Sensored*!!!!
There is nothing to eat here and you still haven't proven anything.
Quote:
Maybe this will help you understand.
Code:
# include <everything_but_the_kitchen_sink.h>
# include <the_kitchen_sink.h>
_asm
{
message db "YOU LOST SENSORED!",0
mov edx, offset message
mov ah, 09
int 21h
mov ax, 4c00h
int 21h
}
This is not a game where someone wins or loses, but if I'd be telling you why, I'd be banned by our beloved admins.
Too hard to just say that your point is that, upon compiling a piece of C code, the binary can always be different and assembly is always the same. As I said before; a few lines of assembly are required and Coreboot then continues to be in C. I still don't get what this adds to the discussusion AT ALL.
Thus is the same when I say: Ferrari's are most often red. Yeah so what? I dunno... So what's your point?
Yeah, awesome truth tables... can only be done in assembly. That's why there are a few lines of assembly in the Coreboot sourcecode. Wow. Didn't I allready told you that a thousand times by now?
There is nothing to eat here and you still haven't proven anything.
This is not a game where someone wins or loses, but if I'd be telling you why, I'd be banned by our beloved admins.
Way to completely miss the point, you told me assembler was compiled and now you change it to coreboot needs a few lines of assembly?
I agree it does, but that's not what we were arguing about, stop it!
We were arguing about the fact weather asm is compiled or not, which it is not! Nice try tho.
Back on topic, I think coreboot is great, but I don't think it should be pushed on everyone. I like to be able to install 16bit operating systems, like DOS, now I could create a tiny program that sits in the MBR that jumps back to 16bit real mode but why should I have to? The cpu itself is designed with compatibility mode so why would I wanna use a kernel that is only 32bit to boot my machines hardware? this makes no sense to me.
Way to completely miss the point, you told me assembler was compiled and now you change it to coreboot needs a few lines of assembly?
I have never changed anything: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...78#post3569678
First a few lines of assembly and then continues into C.
You were explaining me what compiling was. Ok officialy compiling means code->target code. Fine. You win. However that would be kinda inane, because every programmer who wrote a serious piece of software just throws it at a modern compiler, like gcc for example, and it is turned into binary automagically. We still just reffer to that process as compiling. Just as you probably reffer to assambly languages by the word assambler, which is actually the 'compiler'/whatever.
Quote:
We were arguing about the fact weather asm is compiled or not, which it is not! Nice try tho.
No it's not compiled, just 'translated into binary' -_-'
But that wasn't really the point, now was it?
Quote:
Back on topic, I think coreboot is great, but I don't think it should be pushed on everyone. I like to be able to install 16bit operating systems, like DOS, now I could create a tiny program that sits in the MBR that jumps back to 16bit real mode but why should I have to? The cpu itself is designed with compatibility mode so why would I wanna use a kernel that is only 32bit to boot my machines hardware? this makes no sense to me.
Yes please
Coreboot is clearly about also cutting away legacy stuff, and focusses on the future. MSDOS is kinda legacy. However there might be a work-around with FreeDOS: http://www.freedos.org/
Hurray for open source
I have never changed anything: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...78#post3569678
First a few lines of assembly and then continues into C.
You were explaining me what compiling was. Ok officialy compiling means code->target code. Fine. You win. However that would be kinda inane, because every programmer who wrote a serious piece of software just throws it at a modern compiler, like gcc for example, and it is turned into binary automagically. We still just reffer to that process as compiling. Just as you probably reffer to assambly languages by the word assambler, which is actually the 'compiler'/whatever.
No it's not compiled, just 'translated into binary' -_-'
But that wasn't really the point, now was it?
Yes please
Coreboot is clearly about also cutting away legacy stuff, and focusses on the future. MSDOS is kinda legacy. However there might be a work-around with FreeDOS: http://www.freedos.org/
Hurray for open source
A compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that transforms source code written in a computer language (the source language) into another computer language (the target language, often having a binary form known as object code). The most common reason for wanting to transform source code is to create an executable program.
The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code). A program that translates from a low level language to a higher level one is a decompiler. A program that translates between high-level languages is usually called a language translator, source to source translator, or language converter. A language rewriter is usually a program that translates the form of expressions without a change of language.
A compiler is likely to perform many or all of the following operations: lexical analysis, preprocessing, parsing, semantic analysis, code generation, and code optimization.
Program faults caused by incorrect compiler behavior can be very difficult to track down and work around and compiler implementors invest a lot of time ensuring the correctness of their software.
The term compiler-compiler is sometimes used to refer to a parser generator, a tool often used to help create a compiler.
You should read the above. You fully don't understand a compiler. You are mixing definitions with the mis-use of statements that are extracted to suit your framework of a weak argument.
In computer science, a linker or link editor is a program that takes one or more objects generated by a compiler and combines them into a single executable program.
In IBM mainframe environments such as OS/360 this program is known as a linkage editor.
On Unix variants the term loader is often used as a synonym for linker. Because this usage blurs the distinction between the compile-time process and the run-time process, this article will use linking for the former and loading for the latter. However, in some operating systems the same program handles both the jobs of linking and loading a program; see dynamic linking.
Computer programs typically comprise several parts or modules; all these parts/modules need not be contained within a single object file, and in such case refer to each other by means of symbols. Typically, an object file can contain three kinds of symbols:
* defined symbols, which allow it to be called by other modules,
* undefined symbols, which call the other modules where these symbols are defined, and
* local symbols, used internally within the object file to facilitate relocation.
When a program comprises multiple object files, the linker combines these files into a unified executable program, resolving the symbols as it goes along.
Linkers can take objects from a collection called a library. Some linkers do not include the whole library in the output; they only include its symbols that are referenced from other object files or libraries. Libraries exist for diverse purposes, and one or more system libraries are usually linked in by default.
The linker also takes care of arranging the objects in a program's address space. This may involve relocating code that assumes a specific base address to another base. Since a compiler seldom knows where an object will reside, it often assumes a fixed base location (for example, zero). Relocating machine code may involve re-targeting of absolute jumps, loads and stores.
The executable output by the linker may need another relocation pass when it is finally loaded into memory (just before execution). This pass is usually omitted on hardware offering virtual memory — every program is put into its own address space, so there is no conflict even if all programs load at the same base address. This pass may also be omitted if the executable is a position independent executable.
Assembly languages are a family of low-level languages for programming computers. It implements a symbolic representation of the numeric machine codes and other constants needed to program a particular CPU architecture. This representation is usually defined by the hardware manufacturer, and is based on abbreviations (called mnemonics) that help the programmer remember individual instructions, registers, etc. An assembly language is thus specific to a certain physical or virtual computer architecture (as opposed to most high-level languages, which are usually portable).
A utility program called an assembler is used to translate assembly language statements into the target computer's machine code. The assembler performs a more or less isomorphic translation (a one-to-one mapping) from mnemonic statements into machine instructions and data. (This is in contrast with high-level languages, in which a single statement generally results in many machine instructions.)
Many sophisticated assemblers offer additional mechanisms to facilitate program development, control the assembly process, and aid debugging. In particular, most modern assemblers (although many have been available for more than 40 years already) include a macro facility (described below), and are called macro assemblers.
In computer science, a library is a collection of subroutines or classes used to develop software. Libraries contain code and data that provide services to independent programs. This allows the sharing and changing of code and data in a modular fashion. Some executables are both standalone programs and libraries, but most libraries are not executables. Executables and libraries make references known as links to each other through the process known as linking, which is typically done by a linker.
As of 2009[update], most modern software systems provide libraries that implement the majority of system services. Such libraries have commoditized the services which a modern application expects to a get provided. As such, most code used by modern applications is provided in these system libraries.
If you should really read the above quotes for understanding then you will see what we are stating concerning the way you present your argument as being incorrect.
I know that I said that I would not respond again but I did forget to unsubscribe to this thread and have been away from LQ. Vincent, you really are running around a bush with the information you have been presenting. Any code be it written in 'C', Pascal or whatever the higher language is compiled after formation. If you do not have errors or even flaws then you pass the code through a 'linker'. This linker is used on the object code to form a means of having executable 'machine code' on the desired architecture.
Your bantering and mis-use of the terminology can/will create problems for anyone who may lack the full understanding therefore follow your poor definitions within this thread.
I do apologize for the labeling but it is starting to really fit as you keep digging the hole deeper. One can write a preamble to any code but the end product that the CPU does see is still 'machine code'. That same code is in binary form once you pass the high level code via a compiler then to a linker to be executable. Hopefully the written code is not garbage so as to have a operational program. Let's not even get into the translators or trans-code until the fully understanding of how the code compiler and linker function.
Programmers long ago decided to develop a higher language since even writing in 'machine code' can be cumbersome along with being error prone. The 'ASM' (low level language) was developed to provide a means to expedite code development. So after others decided to develop the means to utilize other higher languages. Some people prefer 'C', this allowed the use of 'assembler' routines at a much simpler human understandable fashion. Yet a programmer still could write 'asm' routines(libraries) or even utilize the code that was developed by others by a simple call method. The mixing of the 'asm' and the ability to have the routines available provided the means to write code at a higher rate. But you need to remember the routines that you actually utilize are still 'assembled code' not executable.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
